Quote:
Originally Posted by the11fisherman
I just wish that people debating about this type of nonsense would do a few thigs......
1) Stop quoting articles that are not peer-reviewed..........because if it isn't it is basically not trustworthy. If you don't know what peer-reviewed means or how to tell if it is......go and educate yourself even though it will probably hurt your brain.
2) Stop jumping on the bandwagon. Do your research (from peer-reviewed articles) and get the facts rather than what your pot head friend said. I have seen many instances on this site and members youtube channels where they do not even properly identify a fish....why should you believe what they say about something like vaccines if they can't even differentiate species properly????????
3) Once you have gone through the mentally painful process of reading peer-reviewed articles and gotten facts that are studied by REAL SCIENTISTS and not some hippy crack-addict, then feel free to share your opinions, but by that point, there would only be one opinion and that is the true one.
|
Unfortunately, ‘peer review’ is subject to all of the corrupting influences and bias of ‘personal self interest’, ‘conflict of interest’, and any of several prejudices and cognitive biases such as, confirmation bias, (and confirmation dissonance) and especially ‘academic bias’, ‘funding bias’, and ‘experimenter bias’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
By definition, peer is, “a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.” Strictly speaking, judgment ‘by a group (jury) of one’s peers, would require that ‘kings be judged by kings’, but also that ‘idiots be judged by idiots’, and ‘ignorance be judged by similar ignorance’, (some may submit both are what we have here, but I submit that ‘argumentum ad hominem’ is the last refuge of a failed argument).
IMHO, always question the perspective and objectivity of any opinion.
Good Luck, YMMV.
Threaded Mode
